Good day to be an American. Mixed feelings because it brings up memories of the ones we lost - the scars are still fresh - but it's amazing to have a huge thorn in the side of the U.S.A. removed.

fart

05-01-2011, 11:33 PM

*move this if it's not in the right section, sorry, I'm new

steelax04

05-01-2011, 11:41 PM

Definitely not the correct section... but front page worthy, indeed.

Lady Steel

05-01-2011, 11:43 PM

Obama all over the news. Have the body and confirmed the body. Hooray!

SH-Rock

05-01-2011, 11:54 PM

So what? Will this stop US oppression in the middle east? Will this stop extremists from getting revenge on the US? This could go 2 ways. Good for US or Good for Terrorists. Bin Laden could be seen as a martyr thus increasing morale and more men are hired for extremism or this could put fear in their hearts and lead to the War on Terror finally ending.

fart

05-02-2011, 12:09 AM

So what? Will this stop US oppression in the middle east? Will this stop extremists from getting revenge on the US? This could go 2 ways. Good for US or Good for Terrorists. Bin Laden could be seen as a martyr thus increasing morale and more men are hired for extremism or this could put fear in their hearts and lead to the War on Terror finally ending.

Was it good when Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin all went down?

Just be safe, everyone, as always. Terrorists could be looking for a revenge, sure, but I pray it doesn't happen.

finesward

05-02-2011, 12:10 AM

lol @ the crowds partying outside of the white house like lynard skynard is about to pop out of the oval office and jam some free bird while obama crowd surfs

show some reserve america, jeesh

whatever...i personally am looking forward to the southpark episode that will surely be coming. i hope they incorporate the party crowd celebrating his death

WASHINGTON – Osama bin Laden, the glowering mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that murdered thousands of Americans, was killed in an operation led by the United States, President Barack Obama said Sunday.

"Justice has been done," said the president in a dramatic late-night announcement at the White House.

A small team of Americans killed bin Laden in a firefight Sunday at a compound in Pakistan, the president said, and took custody of his remains. Americaj officials said they were being handled in accordance with Islamic tradition.

A jubilant crowd gathered outside the White House as word spread of bin Laden's death after a global manhunt that lasted nearly a decade.

Former President George W. Bush, who was in office on the day of the attacks, issued a written statement hailing bin Laden's death as a momentous achievement. "The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," he said.

Obama said he ordered the operation after receiving undisclosed intelligence information. Senior administration officials said the terrorist mastermind was found inside a custom-built compound with two security gates. They said it appeared to hvae been constructed to harbor one high-value target and that for undisclosed reasons, officials became clear the hideout was bin Laden's.

Officials also said they believe the death puts al-Qaida on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse, but there was no word on the whereabouts of bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri.

The stunning end to the world's most widely-watched manhunt came just months before the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, orchestrated by bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, that killed more than 3,000 people.

The attacks a decade ago seemed to come out of nowhere, even though al-Qaida had previously damaged American targets overseas.

The terrorists hijacked planes, flew one of them into one of Manhattan's Twin Towers — and, moments later, into the other one. Both buildings collapsed, trapping thousands inside and claiming the lives of firefighters and others who had rushed to help them.

A third plane slammed into the Pentagon, defacing the symbol of America's military night. A fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania after passengers overpowered the hijackers and forced the craft from the air — before it could hit its intended target in Washington.

The attacks set off a chain of events that led the United States into wars in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and America's entire intelligence apparatus was overhauled to counter the threat of more terror attacks at home.

A senior administration official says Obama gave the final order for U.S. officials to go after bin Laden on Friday. The official added that a small team found their quarry hiding in a large home in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. The raid occurred in the early morning hours Sunday.

Administration officials offered some details of the operation.

Based on statements given by U.S. detainees, intelligence officials have known for years that bin Laden trusted one al-Qaida courier in particular and they believed he might be living with him in hiding. In November, intelligence officials found out where he was living, a huge fortified compound in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. It was surrounded by walls as high as 18 feet high, topped with barbed wire. There were two security gates and no phone or Internet running into the house.

Intelligence officials believed the $1 million home was custom-built to harbor a major terrorist. CIA experts analyzed whether it could be anyone else, but time and again, they decided it was almost certainly bin Laden.

Three adult males were also killed in Sunday's raid, including one of bin Laden's sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden's sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida.

Obama spoke with Bush and former President Bill Clinton Sunday night to inform them of the developments.

Obama struck a less than boastful tone in his brief announcement, although he said the death of bin Laden was "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaida.

"His death does not mark the end of our effort. There's no doubt that al-Qaida will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant," he added.

Moments after he spoke, American officials cautioned that the events could lead to heightened threats against the United States.

Officials said the U.S. would ensure that bin Laden's body was handled in accordance with Islamic tradition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden

VegasStlrFan

05-02-2011, 01:34 AM

So what? Will this stop US oppression in the middle east? Will this stop extremists from getting revenge on the US? This could go 2 ways. Good for US or Good for Terrorists. Bin Laden could be seen as a martyr thus increasing morale and more men are hired for extremism or this could put fear in their hearts and lead to the War on Terror finally ending.

You're kidding right? Do you think that the terrorist targeting America were sitting back waiting for a reason to come again? They would hit us everyday everywhere if they could. Those miserable SOB's live their lives to kill Americans, this isn't going to make them cross a line they otherwise wouldn't have. This doesn't change anything in war on terror, but it does give the country some closure on 9/11.

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 01:35 AM

Was it good when Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin all went down?

Just be safe, everyone, as always. Terrorists could be looking for a revenge, sure, but I pray it doesn't happen.

You do know that Mussolini and Hitler just didn't die. Their whole system crumbled before their eyes. Hitler did suicide, Stalin died naturally and Mussolini was hanged by his people.

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 01:37 AM

You're kidding right? Do you think that the terrorist targeting America were sitting back waiting for a reason to come again? They would hit us everyday everywhere if they could. Those miserable SOB's live their lives to kill Americans, this isn't going to make them cross a line they otherwise wouldn't have. This doesn't change anything in war on terror, but it does give the country some closure on 9/11.
So the US are the ultimate good guys? Everything they do is all for the good for mankind? True Terrorists will not think twice about killing people, but America has it's fair share of killing innocents.

sacredgrooves

05-02-2011, 01:40 AM

Obviously, James Harrison will get fined for this. :)

In all seriousness, awesome news!

VegasStlrFan

05-02-2011, 01:45 AM

So the US are the ultimate good guys? Everything they do is all for the good for mankind? True Terrorists will not think twice about killing people, but America has it's fair share of killing innocents.

What's your point? Are you saying the american public deserves to be a target?

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 01:50 AM

What's your point? Are you saying the american public deserves to be a target?

What? I never talked about the American public at all. Just saying that America or a better term American Government Officials aren't all pure hearted either. Many innocent men, women and children have died at the hands of American Soldiers.

VegasStlrFan

05-02-2011, 02:05 AM

What? I never talked about the American public at all. Just saying that America or a better term American Government Officials aren't all pure hearted either. Many innocent men, women and children have died at the hands of American Soldiers.

Wow! You might want to check the flag your living under. Please tell me which "country" is innocent in your eyes.

What? I never talked about the American public at all. Just saying that America or a better term American Government Officials aren't all pure hearted either. Many innocent men, women and children have died at the hands of American Soldiers.

So then what is the difference between terrorists and American soldiers?

Fire Arians

05-02-2011, 03:12 AM

good riddance. although i don't know how meaningful his death is in the grand scheme of things, al queda still exists without him

pete74

05-02-2011, 05:01 AM

i will leave this here for a while because its great news and a great day in american history. i really wished we could of took him to america and made him suffer for a few months but im glad to see him burn in hell

finesward

05-02-2011, 06:58 AM

So the US are the ultimate good guys? Everything they do is all for the good for mankind? True Terrorists will not think twice about killing people, but America has it's fair share of killing innocents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI&has_verified=1

lol

SteelCityMom

05-02-2011, 07:09 AM

i will leave this here for a while because its great news and a great day in american history. i really wished we could of took him to america and made him suffer for a few months but im glad to see him burn in hell

Oh oops lol. I pretty much merged it with the thread posted in the Locker Room.

It is great news...I'm glad they got him. In the grand scheme of things though, I don't know how much of a victory it is yet. Only time will tell I guess. Be safe everyone!

SteelCityMom

05-02-2011, 07:13 AM

So then what is the difference between terrorists and American soldiers?

It's a fine line I think sometimes. And believe me, I support our troops...I'm not saying they are terrorists, but I know where SH is coming from. Just because we feel one way about our troops and government, doesn't mean that another countries people feel the same way. Not everything is as black and white as some would like it to be I think.

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 11:19 AM

So then what is the difference between terrorists and American soldiers?

Difference between American Soldiers and Terrorists:

American Soldiers:
Are there for the freedom of the oppressed people, which I don't doubt.
Have killed innocent men, women and children

Terrorists:
Just bad to the bone

Well it's war, so how can we judge what's right and wrong. Oh and I'm not an American. I'm Canadian.

Wallace108

05-02-2011, 12:50 PM

It's a fine line I think sometimes. And believe me, I support our troops...I'm not saying they are terrorists, but I know where SH is coming from. Just because we feel one way about our troops and government, doesn't mean that another countries people feel the same way. Not everything is as black and white as some would like it to be I think.

Difference between American Soldiers and Terrorists:

American Soldiers:
Are there for the freedom of the oppressed people, which I don't doubt.
Have killed innocent men, women and children

Terrorists:
Just bad to the bone

Well it's war, so how can we judge what's right and wrong. Oh and I'm not an American. I'm Canadian.
Like they say ... war is hell. A lot of bad things happen during war. And innocent people get killed.

The difference between our soldiers and terrorists is we don't target civilians, especially women and children. Sure there's going to be mistakes, and you're going to have some rogue soldiers who step over the line. We've seen it in every war. But that goes against what we believe in, and those soldiers are dealt with.

So I have to disagree with Mom that there's a fine line. The terrorists purposefully target civilians. Our goal is peace. There goal is destruction. Look at how we've fought the war in Iraq. We could have won that war in one day if we were like the terrorists. Could you imagine what the world would look like if the terrorists had our military and nuclear capabilities?

And our soldiers don't just kill. They do a lot of good as well. Just in the last few years, they were sent to help in Haiti and Japan after the earthquakes. I don't recall seeing al-Qaida over there helping.

And SH-Rock, the reason Canada hasn't had to worry about all the atrocities of war is because you've had America to stand behind and do all the heavy lifting for you. You're welcome. :wink02:

fer522

05-02-2011, 01:36 PM

i glad that he was dealt with i really am
but honestly i don't feel safer today than i did yesterday
if anything i worry that al qaeda or any other terrorist group
will try to harm as many people as possible here or abroad
and that kinda scares and bottom line theres always gonna
be an osama bin laden out there i just dont think this will ever end

SteelCityMom

05-02-2011, 02:21 PM

Like they say ... war is hell. A lot of bad things happen during war. And innocent people get killed.

The difference between our soldiers and terrorists is we don't target civilians, especially women and children. Sure there's going to be mistakes, and you're going to have some rogue soldiers who step over the line. We've seen it in every war. But that goes against what we believe in, and those soldiers are dealt with.

So I have to disagree with Mom that there's a fine line. The terrorists purposefully target civilians. Our goal is peace. There goal is destruction. Look at how we've fought the war in Iraq. We could have won that war in one day if we were like the terrorists. Could you imagine what the world would look like if the terrorists had our military and nuclear capabilities?

And our soldiers don't just kill. They do a lot of good as well. Just in the last few years, they were sent to help in Haiti and Japan after the earthquakes. I don't recall seeing al-Qaida over there helping.

And SH-Rock, the reason Canada hasn't had to worry about all the atrocities of war is because you've had America to stand behind and do all the heavy lifting for you. You're welcome. :wink02:

I guess I should have worded my statement better, because I didn't want to imply at all that I thought our soldiers were anything like terrorists. I just think that by some outside of the US, they are perceived that way. That (IMO) has more to do with our foreign policies than anything else. For a long time now, the US has been seen as kind of an international bully, and have sometimes had a policy of "it's our way or no way at all". If that makes any sense.

That's kind of what I meant by the fine line. I'll always support our troops...I just don't always support those in charge of our troops.

MasterOfPuppets

05-02-2011, 02:28 PM

Difference between American Soldiers and Terrorists:

American Soldiers:
Are there for the natural resources of the oppressed people, which I don't doubt.
Have killed innocent men, women and children

.
fixed it for ya ...:thumbsup:

if anyone doubts it , please explain the difference between libya , sudan , syria , nigeria , darfur.
what makes libya "citizens" worthy of NATO , "protection" , from an oppressive regime , but not the citizens of the other countries mentioned ?

this sure is good timing for obama and his poll ratings ..maybe america will forget about its economy being sucked into a black hole ....
bush rode bin laden's "deeds" to a second term...maybe obama can ride bin laden's corpse to a second term.....:noidea:
he'll probably put pictures of osama's "sea burial" on his campaign posters...

stlrtruck

05-02-2011, 03:23 PM

I'm still waiting for pictures. I trust not the government.

Atlanta Dan

05-02-2011, 04:34 PM

I'm still waiting for pictures. I trust not the government.

I doubt Obama will have a press conference but I bet they are formally disclosed or "leaked."

I got a call around 10:30 to turn on the TV since Obama was going on the air (to announce the Martians would be landing at midnight?)

I turn on the TV and in my dazed state saw "Osama dead" as "Obama dead" - after I get past that up until 2 am watching coverage

Wonder when we find out the identity of the Seal who put 2 bullets into Osama?

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 04:40 PM

I doubt Obama will have a press conference but I bet they are formally disclosed or "leaked."

I got a call around 10:30 to turn on the TV since Obama was going on the air (to announce the Martians would be landing at midnight?)

I turn on the TV and in my dazed state saw "Osama dead" as "Obama dead" - after I get past that up until 2 am watching coverage

Wonder when we find out the identity of the Seal who put 2 bullets into Osama?

Probably not anytime soon. He'll need maximum security 24/7.

SteelMember

05-02-2011, 04:43 PM

This is about the only photo (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/REFILE---CORRECTING-HEADLINEThis-video-frame-grab-obtained-ABC-News/photo//110502/ids_photos_wl/r723308681.jpg//s:/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden#photoViewer=/110502/481/urn_publicid_ap_org842f9b7f9b2a4fe69e40a3c5a518c7e 1) I have found.

SteelCityMom

05-02-2011, 04:47 PM

This is about the only photo (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/REFILE---CORRECTING-HEADLINEThis-video-frame-grab-obtained-ABC-News/photo//110502/ids_photos_wl/r723308681.jpg//s:/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden#photoViewer=/110502/481/urn_publicid_ap_org842f9b7f9b2a4fe69e40a3c5a518c7e 1) I have found.

That photo is a fake and was a horrible photo shop job. The White House (last I heard) hasn't decided on whether or not to release photos.

Osama Bin Laden is dead – prove it

May 2, 2011 08:04 EDT
Abottabad (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/abottabad) | Al Qaeda (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/al-qaeda) | Bin Laden (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/bin-laden) | fake (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/fake) | Pakistan (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/pakistan) | Photoshop (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/tag/photoshop)
When the news broke that Osama Bin Laden was dead, at the Reuters Global Pictures Desk in Singapore all we could think was one thing: We have to see the picture of the dead body. The world needed the tangible proof of a genuine photo before we could really absorb the idea that the world’s most sought and also most elusive Islamic extremist was dead. We also knew that the news agency that was first in sending a picture of his dead body to the world would go a long way to winning this historic story. Sending out a fake picture could be very embarrassing to say the least – a tough balancing act when under such pressure.
http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/files/2011/05/combo44.jpg (http://blogs.reuters.com/russell-boyce/files/2011/05/combo44.jpg)
A few hours later there it was circulating on the internet: Osama Bin Laden’s bloodied face in a video transmitted by a TV station in Pakistan. Under tremendous pressure we could get the picture and fed it into our picture editing system in preparation for transmission around the globe.
But was it really Osama? It was rumoured that the source was US military but the editors on the Global Picture Desk found inconsistencies that immediately made us suspicious. There was odd pixilation and blurring and his face was darker in some areas than others. The biggest problem was that the picture looked familiar somehow. Quickly looking through dozens of our archive pictures we found that the bottom half of Osama Bin Laden’s face was identical to a picture of him speaking at a news conference in 1998. After flipping the picture 180 degrees and overlaying it with the picture of the dead Osama Bin Laden we had a perfect match. It was a fake.
The fake picture was locked in our system so that it couldn’t be sent out but would be saved for future training exercises. Meanwhile, the fake picture quickly gained momentum in cyber space.
We’re still waiting for that genuine picture of the body of Osama Bin Laden.

The picture is a fake. It was on 4chan after a few minutes it was announced Bin Laden had "died".

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 05:38 PM

I would like to ask how many people actually celebrated the death of Bin Laden?
I think it's funny that it's wrong to make fun of 9/11 victims, but it's okay to celebrate in unison of a man's death. This should be only sober satisfaction and closure for the family of 9/11 attack victims.

MattsMe

05-02-2011, 07:02 PM

I would like to ask how many people actually celebrated the death of Bin Laden?
I think it's funny that it's wrong to make fun of 9/11 victims, but it's okay to celebrate in unison of a man's death. This should be only sober satisfaction and closure for the family of 9/11 attack victims.

If you were speaking in regards to people who had no connection to the victims of the attacks, I would just ignore you. You weren't though.

I thought the public celebrations were excessive, but that's to be expected.

I would never presume to tell the survivors and families of victims how they should react, and I can only empathize with the burden of someone who would.

It cannot be easy carrying an ego that size everywhere you go.

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 09:49 PM

If you were speaking in regards to people who had no connection to the victims of the attacks, I would just ignore you. You weren't though.

I thought the public celebrations were excessive, but that's to be expected.

I would never presume to tell the survivors and families of victims how they should react, and I can only empathize with the burden of someone who would.

It cannot be easy carrying an ego that size everywhere you go.

You do know that everyone that celebrated at the Mets/Phillies game, everyone that celebrated in front of the White and everyone that is celebrating on Monday Night Raw right now wasn't a directly affected by the terrorist attacks.

And as far as ego. I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure no family that has been affected by the 9/11 attacks is celebrating the death of Bin Laden. Just the thought of his name would remind their family of the dear loved ones.

MattsMe

05-02-2011, 09:53 PM

You do know that everyone that celebrated at the Mets/Phillies game, everyone that celebrated in front of the White and everyone that is celebrating on Monday Night Raw right now wasn't a directly affected by the terrorist attacks.

And as far as ego. I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure no family that has been affected by the 9/11 attacks is celebrating the death of Bin Laden. Just the thought of his name would remind their family of the dear loved ones.

:shake02:

Is that ignorance or arrogance talking? It's such a blurry line.

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 09:59 PM

:shake02:

Is that ignorance or arrogance talking? It's such a blurry line.

I still don't understand why you're calling me ignorant/arrogant?

MattsMe

05-02-2011, 10:15 PM

I still don't understand why you're calling me ignorant/arrogant?

This should be only sober satisfaction and closure for the family of 9/11 attack victims.

Arrogance.

I'm pretty sure no family that has been affected by the 9/11 attacks is celebrating the death of Bin Laden.

Ignorance.

All clear now?

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 10:21 PM

Arrogance.

Ignorance.

All clear now?

No it doesn't. Please expand on this more. I am being called arrogant for saying not to celebrate his death and move on? I think it would be arrogant to celebrate his death. And I am ignorant because I say that families of 9/11 victims are probably not celebrating this? Please expand on this.

Wallace108

05-02-2011, 11:24 PM

I guess I should have worded my statement better, because I didn't want to imply at all that I thought our soldiers were anything like terrorists. I just think that by some outside of the US, they are perceived that way. That (IMO) has more to do with our foreign policies than anything else. For a long time now, the US has been seen as kind of an international bully, and have sometimes had a policy of "it's our way or no way at all". If that makes any sense.

That's kind of what I meant by the fine line. I'll always support our troops...I just don't always support those in charge of our troops.
I understand what you're saying, Mom. We've always had a messed up relationship with other countries. Take the Arab countries for example. In public, they condemn us and talk about American imperialism. But privately (as per wikileaks), they want us to attack Iran. Countries complain about what we do, then run to us for help. So I couldn't care less what they think about us. And I don't care if you're talking about world affairs, politics, businesses, or whatever ... the one with the power gets to make the rules. That sucks sometimes (if you're not the one with the power), but that's the way it is.

fixed it for ya ...:thumbsup:

if anyone doubts it , please explain the difference between libya , sudan , syria , nigeria , darfur.
what makes libya "citizens" worthy of NATO , "protection" , from an oppressive regime , but not the citizens of the other countries mentioned ?
You're absolutely right, MoP. The reason we intervened in Libya but not Syria has nothing to do with protecting the Libyan people. It has everything to do with protecting our interests. And there's an argument to be made that that isn't a bad thing.

Wallace108

05-02-2011, 11:41 PM

And I am ignorant because I say that families of 9/11 victims are probably not celebrating this? Please expand on this.
Everybody reacts differently to death. I've seen people cry uncontrollably at funerals, but I've also seen people laugh. People deal with grief in their own way. And people deal with this kind of news in their own way.

This is just one example from a mother who lost her son on 9/11:

"I'd like to think that all the people who were murdered on Sept. 11 are celebrating," said Maureen Santora, whose firefighter son, Christopher, was killed in the collapsed towers. She said she knows her son, who died at age 23, would have been "dancing in the streets" at word of bin Laden's death.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110502/ap_on_re_us/us_bin_laden_sept11_families

SH-Rock

05-02-2011, 11:44 PM

Everybody reacts differently to death. I've seen people cry uncontrollably at funerals, but I've also seen people laugh. People deal with grief in their own way. And people deal with this kind of news in their own way.

This is just one example from a mother who lost her son on 9/11:

Well ofc people react different to death, but I don't think some people react by celebrating.

finesward

05-02-2011, 11:45 PM

Arrogance.

Ignorance.

All clear now?

Basically he's saying your arrogant because your in a way deciding how people who have had loved ones killed by osama should react to the news of his death (sorry i completely botched that the first time i typed it)

And your ignorant because your pretty sure, now think about how that sounds, pretty sure that none of the families are happy he is dead. Technically I guess both could be considered ignorant or arrogant

Without making those kind of assertions I'm with ya that all the celebrating is a bit over the top and makes americans in general look like assholes to some degree. Take a look at this chick celebrating the death of osama at the white house...

now is that not irony?? cute chick with a big smile with her tits flopping around showing the double peace signs in celebration of someone's murder....lol

Wallace108

05-02-2011, 11:49 PM

Well ofc people react different to death, but I don't think some people react by celebrating.
Apparently they do. I saw them do it. :noidea:

finesward

05-02-2011, 11:54 PM

Apparently they do. I saw them do it. :noidea:

:chuckle:

Reminds me of the obama south park episode when all the democrats found out he won...

0WXhO_-e3bM

SH-Rock

05-03-2011, 12:00 AM

Apparently they do. I saw them do it. :noidea:

No as in an actual reaction to a normal persons death. No one celebrates, and if you do you're an outcast. But yesterday I witnessed a whole nation have a carouse because another human being died. Sure he wasn't a good guy, but like you and me, he was human.

Wallace108

05-03-2011, 12:11 AM

No as in an actual reaction to a normal persons death. No one celebrates, and if you do you're an outcast. But yesterday I witnessed a whole nation have a carouse because another human being died. Sure he wasn't a good guy, but like you and me, he was human.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. :drink:

We have to understand, though, that Osama wasn't just another human being. I'm sure all the people who were celebrating wouldn't react the same way if they found out someone's mother or father had been killed. For many, Osama isn't a human being ... he's pure evil. And his death is cause for celebration. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand why so many would react that way. This has been a 10-year ordeal, and Osama's actions have had a profound effect on our country beyond 9/11, all negative. So I'm not surprised that people reacted the way they did.

SH-Rock

05-03-2011, 12:31 AM

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. :drink:

We have to understand, though, that Osama wasn't just another human being. I'm sure all the people who were celebrating wouldn't react the same way if they found out someone's mother or father had been killed. For many, Osama isn't a human being ... he's pure evil. And his death is cause for celebration. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can understand why so many would react that way. This has been a 10-year ordeal, and Osama's actions have had a profound effect on our country beyond 9/11, all negative. So I'm not surprised that people reacted the way they did.

I'm not surprised either
Excellent quote by Mark Twain:
“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

Maybe I just have to much hope in mankind. I actually felt bad for the guy. He threw his life away doing something heinous while he could've contributed to society.

Wallace108

05-03-2011, 12:52 AM

I'm not surprised either
Excellent quote by Mark Twain:
“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

Maybe I just have to much hope in mankind. I actually felt bad for the guy. He threw his life away doing something heinous while he could've contributed to society.
You and I have different perspectives. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong ... just that we have different perspectives.

If I had seen Americans celebrating the deaths of innocent people in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be the first one to stand up and condemn them. But bin Laden wasn't an innocent man. He was evil and got what he deserved. He caused heartache for millions of people around the world (not just because of his actions on 9/11). He didn't want to live peacefully with the western world ... he wanted to destroy us. We all make our own decisions in life. He chose his path. And that path led him into the crosshairs of a U.S. Navy SEAL. Good riddance!

ricardisimo

05-03-2011, 04:36 AM

No as in an actual reaction to a normal persons death. No one celebrates, and if you do you're an outcast. But yesterday I witnessed a whole nation have a carouse because another human being died. Sure he wasn't a good guy, but like you and me, he was human.
He was human, but we've never really cared about that, and I don't expect us to start any time soon. I would have thought that his real value would have been alive, testifying at his own trial for mass murder. That no one in the chain of command found that desirous should tell you something.

You and I have different perspectives. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong ... just that we have different perspectives.

If I had seen Americans celebrating the deaths of innocent people in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be the first one to stand up and condemn them. But bin Laden wasn't an innocent man. He was evil and got what he deserved. He caused heartache for millions of people around the world (not just because of his actions on 9/11). He didn't want to live peacefully with the western world ... he wanted to destroy us. We all make our own decisions in life. He chose his path. And that path led him into the crosshairs of a U.S. Navy SEAL. Good riddance!
There are solid reasons to believe bin Laden was the primary architect of 9/11, his experience with the Cole attack being foremost among them. Unfortunately, now we will never know for sure, and the doubters just got legitimacy handed to them on a silver platter.

MasterOfPuppets

05-03-2011, 12:29 PM

You're absolutely right, MoP. The reason we intervened in Libya but not Syria has nothing to do with protecting the Libyan people. It has everything to do with protecting our interests. And there's an argument to be made that that isn't a bad thing.
if bankrupting the country protecting "our" interest isn't a bad thing , then i must have a different definition of bad than most.
while we piss away trillions to force our will on sovereign nations china is quietly spending billions investing in other nations and achieving better results. the proof is in the economy.

who's interest are we really protecting ? the average american citizen ? or big oil who is raping said citizens everytime we stop at the pump.?
our military has become mercenaries for oil companies and wall street bankers..

MasterOfPuppets

05-03-2011, 12:52 PM

i guess pakistan will be next on our bombing tour. .... the stage is set. ... all we need is another trillion from china and its on !!! : :boxing:

Wallace108

05-03-2011, 12:56 PM

if bankrupting the country protecting "our" interest isn't a bad thing , then i must have a different definition of bad than most.
while we piss away trillions to force our will on sovereign nations china is quietly spending billions investing in other nations and achieving better results. the proof is in the economy.

who's interest are we really protecting ? the average american citizen ? or big oil who is raping said citizens everytime we stop at the pump.?
our military has become mercenaries for oil companies and wall street bankers..

You make a good argument. But I don't think our economy is in shambles because of the wars we're engaged in. I'm all for protecting our oil interests. I just wish our government would protect our economic interests and revisit all those "free trade" deals. But you and I both know that will never happen because they're not about to bite the hand that feeds.

MasterOfPuppets

05-03-2011, 01:04 PM

You make a good argument. But I don't think our economy is in shambles because of the wars we're engaged in. I'm all for protecting our oil interests. I just wish our government would protect our economic interests and revisit all those "free trade" deals. But you and I both know that will never happen because they're not about to bite the hand that feeds.
thats my point wally... it's not "OUR" oil interest. its their oil interest. if they want to protect "our" oil interest , then the oil flowing through the alaskan pipeline wouldn't be going to other countries. refined oil wouldn't be exported to other countries. refineries would be working at 100 % instead of 80. new refineries would be built instead of waiting around for another hurricane to shut down the few we have running.

Wallace108

05-03-2011, 01:06 PM

thats my point wally... it's not "OUR" oil interest. its their oil interest. if they want to protect "our" oil interest , then the oil flowing through the alaskan pipeline wouldn't be going to other countries. refined oil wouldn't be exported to other countries. refineries would be working at 100 % instead of 80. new refineries would be built instead of waiting around for another hurricane to shut down the few we have running.
No disagreement there. :drink:

MACH1

05-03-2011, 03:43 PM

if bankrupting the country protecting "our" interest isn't a bad thing , then i must have a different definition of bad than most.
while we piss away trillions to force our will on sovereign nations china is quietly spending billions investing in other nations and achieving better results. the proof is in the economy.

who's interest are we really protecting ? the average american citizen ? or big oil who is raping said citizens everytime we stop at the pump.?
our military has become mercenaries for oil companies and wall street bankers..

Only problem with that is that the government is making more money than the oil company's off the taxes it charges.

ricardisimo

05-04-2011, 03:10 AM

Only problem with that is that the government is making more money than the oil company's off the taxes it charges.
Which government are you talking about? According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.html), Exxon pays taxes, just not to the U.S.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

MACH1

05-04-2011, 10:50 AM

Which government are you talking about?

How much federal taxes are added to a gallon of gas before it even gets to the pumps?

The map above from API shows gasoline taxes by state (combined local, state and federal), which range from a low of 26.4 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of of 66.1 cents per gallon in California, averaging 48.1 cents per gallon across all states. How does that compare to oil company industry profits per gallon?

According to this post on Exxon Mobil's Perspective Blog , "For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That’s not a typo. Two cents."

Update: ExxonMobil is now reporting that for its retail gasoline operations in the U.S., it made an average profit of 7 cents per gallon during the first quarter of 2011.

That being said, I'm pissed because they tell me it takes months to get DNA evidence in my trials and I sat here and watched them get it in a day on Osama. Then they tell me he's dead? Shiiiiiiiiiit. Lying bastards. :wink02:

MACH1

05-05-2011, 08:55 AM

Deather. :chuckle:

tony hipchest

05-05-2011, 06:46 PM

I miss Tony.

That being said, I'm pissed because they tell me it takes months to get DNA evidence in my trials and I sat here and watched them get it in a day on Osama. Then they tell me he's dead? Shiiiiiiiiiit. Lying bastards. :wink02:

:wave:

so i watched hannity the other night desperately plead with every guest (all who happened to be republican) to agree with him that former prez bush deserved atleast half the credit.

what a worm.

if clinton can carry all the blame for missing osama with the tomahawks in 98 i guess bush can carry all the blame for tora bora.

SH-Rock

05-05-2011, 10:25 PM

I think this is a good article to read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-gerloff/the-psychology-of-revenge_b_856184.html

The Psychology of Revenge: Why We Should Stop Celebrating Osama Bin Laden's Death

While the killing of Osama Bin Laden is being enthusiastically celebrated throughout America and some parts of the world, to say that such merriment is out of order will surely be considered heresy. Nonetheless, I'm saying it--because it needs to be said. For starters, let me say this: "Those of you who are celebrating--could you just pause for a moment and consider: What message are you sending the world?"

I certainly understand how those who have suffered from the events of 9/11 may feel relieved, even happy, to have "closure" after ten years of waiting for "justice to be done"--and I don't quarrel with such feelings. Closure is a natural yearning and can help people move on from serious trauma. And, of course, feelings are feelings. If you feel joyful, you feel joyful.

But celebration in the streets and on the airwaves is neither appropriate nor advisable--really--no matter what your feelings of elation. Here's why.

"Celebrating" the killing of any member of our species--for example, by chanting USA! USA! and singing The Star Spangled Banner outside the White House or jubilantly demonstrating in the streets--is a violation of human dignity. Regardless of the perceived degree of "good" or "evil" in any of us, we are all, each of us, human. To celebrate the killing of a life, any life, is a failure to honor life's inherent sanctity.

Plenty of people will argue that Osama Bin Laden did not respect the sanctity of others' lives. To that I would ask, "What relevance does that have to our own actions?" One aspect of being human is our ability to choose our own behavior; more specifically, our capacity to return good for evil, love for hate, dignity for indignity. While Osama Bin Laden was widely considered to be the personification of evil, he was nonetheless a human being. A more peaceable response to his killing would be to mourn the many tragedies that led up to his violent death and the thousands of violent deaths that occurred in the attempt to eliminate him from the face of the Earth; and to feel compassion for anyone who, because of their role in the military or government, American or otherwise, has had to play a role in killing another. This kind of compassion can be cultivated, as practitioners of many different spiritual traditions and humanistic philosophies will attest.

We are not a peaceful species. Nor are we a peaceful nation. The public celebrations of this killing throughout the country draw attention to these facts.

The death of Osama Bin Laden gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves: What kind of nation and what kind of species do we want to be? Do we want to become a species that honors life? Do we want to become a species that embodies peace? If that is what we want, then why not start now to examine our own hearts and actions, and begin to consciously evolve in that direction? We could start by not celebrating the killing of another.

It is hard not to think that some of the impulse to celebrate "justice being done" may also contain a certain pleasure in revenge--not just "closure" but "getting even." The world is not safer with Osama Bin Laden's violent demise (threat levels are going up, not down); evil has not been finally removed from the Earth; the War on Terror goes on--so any celebration must be tempered with the sobering fact that much work still needs to be done to establish peace. The truth is that "celebrating justice" when one person is killed--as happens regularly in the gang wars of American cities--only incites further desire for revenge, which, from "the other side's" viewpoint, is usually called "justice."

Consider this: If a leader in our country were killed in the manner in which Osama Bin Laden was killed, as "justice" for his acts of aggression in the War on Terror--and supporters of that act were shown proudly chanting their country's name, singing their national anthem, and demonstrating in the streets--Americans would likely feel more sickened than joyful, wouldn't you think? The impulse to celebrate a death depends on what side you're on.

The bottom line is that we cannot even begin to have peace until we stop the cycle of jubilation over acts of violence.

So isn't it time to ask: Who will stop the cycle? If not us, who? If not you and I, who will it be?

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls.
It tolls for thee.
--John Donne

Atlanta Dan

05-07-2011, 03:40 PM

so i watched hannity the other night desperately plead with every guest (all who happened to be republican) to agree with him that former prez bush deserved atleast half the credit..

Released photo of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad watching a game between his two favorite teams, the New England Patriots and Baltimore Ravens, on NFL Sunday Ticket

ricardisimo

05-08-2011, 06:50 PM

Weekend Edition
May 6 -8, 2011
CounterPunch Diary

A Volcano of Lies

By ALEXANDER ****BURN
Barack Obama, who pledged to restore ethical honor to the White House after the Bush years, is now burying himself under an active volcano of lies, mostly but not exclusively concerning the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
There was scarcely a sentence in the President's Sunday night address, or in the subsequent briefing by John Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism coordinator, that has not been subsequently retracted by CIA director Leon Panetta or the White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, or by various documentary records.
• The White House photograph of Obama, Clinton and top security advisors supposedly watching real-time footage of the Navy Seals' onslaught on the Abbottabad compound, their killing of two men and a woman (excuse for the latter killing: the standard "caught in crossfire") and liquidation of OBL himself turns out to have been a phony. BO and friends could have been watching basketball replays. Panetta has admitted the real-time video link stopped working before the Seals got into the compound.
• Panetta also admits Osama bin Laden was not armed, and that he did not hide behind his young wife's skirt. He conceded that under military rules of engagement Osama should have been taken prisoner, but then added vaguely that he showed some unspecified form of resistance. He probably reached for his walking stick, since he has been ailing from kidney and liver problems. As any black or brown resident in, say, the purview of the Ramparts Division of the LAPD knows full well, reaching for a walking stick or even holding a cell phone can be a death warrant; multiply that likelihood by a factor of 100 if you are the world’s most wanted terrorist in front of a score of heavily armed and homicidal Navy SEALs, no doubt amped up on amphetamine.
An admitted fan of the herb, Osama may have been stoned as part of his pain management program since there was a marijuana patch outside in the allotment and, like any world star in retirement, Osama liked to smoke a lot of weed and made DVDs of important speeches which stacked up forlornly on the bookshelf next to the bottles of pills and the Koran, hoping to get picked up by Al Jazeera or HBO. How his lieutenants must have yearned for his summary martyrdom as they received his importunate bulletins that they derail a train during Obama’s State of the Union and other madcap schemes.
• The White House claims that issues of delicacy prohibit the release of photographs of Osama's bullet-riddled face and required that after an alleged match with a relative's DNA he be given a swift but formal sea burial in a weighted body bag dropped from the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson into the north Arabian Sea, presumably awaiting retrieval by salvagers with a fix on the Vinson's position at the time of burial.
Maybe the Navy Seal photographer forgot to take his lens cap off. Obama's claims of ethical sensitivity certainly ring hollow. He's battling the wimp factor, and "Lo! The head of Osama" would be a nifty prop. There was lengthy display back in Bush-time of the mutilated bodies of Saddam's sons Uday and Qusay, killed by US special forces in 2003, plus filming of Saddam's own execution by hanging.
Further back, when DNA matches were unknown, US special forces verified Che Guevara's execution by permitting many photographs immediately post-mortem. They also cut off Che's hands, for subsequent verification by the CIA. We're not talking Miss Manners here.
• The official "back story" released Sunday night by Obama is that US intelligence learned of the Abbottabad compound only last August and spent the following months watching the place, following Osama's trusted couriers and concluding that it was highly likely, though not certain, that Osama was there.
This is bunk. The three-storey house has been a well-known feature of Abbottabad. Shaukat Qadir, a well-connected Pakistan Army officer, reported (http://www.counterpunch.org/qadir05052011.html) to CounterPunch from Pakistan: "For the record, this house has been under ISI surveillance while it was under construction. It was first raided in 2003, and the ISI just missed capturing al-Libi (he was later captured by the ISI close to Mardan in K-P Province). It has been raided on numerous occasions since."
Shaukat tells me that contrary to a report in the New York Times by Carlotta Gall on May 5, neither of the two trusted couriers were among the dead in the compound.
Shaukat: “The house where Osama had sought refuge belonged to two brothers from Mardan (a Pashtun dominated region of K-P) who had numerous aliases; locally they were known as Arshad (or Bara—meaning elder) and Chota (younger) Pathan, who have been residents of that house for seven years past. The rub is; neither one has been identified among the dead. If Osama was followed to this house by constant tracking of his courier who, according to CIA reports, shouldn’t one, if not both brothers, should have been present, shouldn’t they? But they weren’t. Of the seven bodies left behind (a female, a child and five men of ages ranging from mid-twenties to mid-thirties), none have been identified as being either brother…. “ Inference: “Osama was sold out. The operation was the result of entrapment. An entrapment organized through one or more of his most trusted aides…”
In fact, specific knowledge by US intelligence of the compound and its likely possible prime denizen goes back to 2005.
This has been established by Israel Shamir, also writing for CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir05042011.html). Shamir compares certain passages in the WikiLeaks documents on Guantanamo against those recently published by the New York Times and the Guardian.
Shamir reports these newspapers were working from the WikiLeaks files supplied to them (price unknown) by WikiLeaks' former German employee, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, "who went AWOL after this appropriation". Shamir says Domscheit-Berg made a deal with the Guardian which subsequently made a co-publication arrangement with the New York Times. "Both papers published the cables after redacting them, or should we say 'censoring' - removing everything the secret services demanded [they] remove."
When Assange learned that the Guardian and the New York Times planned to publish the Guantanamo files, his WikiLeaks team also prepared the files and began to upload. So did the competitors, possessing the Domscheit-Berg appropriated copy.
The most important redactions by the Guardian and the New York Times, Shamir writes, "were directly dictated by the US intelligence services. The name of Nashwan Abd Al Razzaq Abd Al Baqi, or by another name, Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi or by his number IZ-10026 was edited away from the file of Abu al-Libi (US9LY-010017DP) and elsewhere."
This is significant because al-Iraqi was in close contact with al-Libi who had been designated by Osama in 2003 as his trusted, official courier, therefore aware of OBL's whereabouts at all times. In the end, at separate times, the US captured both al-Libi and al-Iraqi, had them both tortured and thus became aware of al-Libi's courier duties and hence the possibility that Osama was in Abbottabad.
Comparison of the redacted version (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-files/US9LY-010017DP) of the Guardian and in the uncut version (http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/prisoner/10017.html) of WikiLeaks shows to what extent all the traces of al-Iraqi, the likely informer-under-torture, were removed at the behest of US intelligence. It was not connected to "caring about informers", for al-Libi was understood at the time to have committed suicide in a Libyan jail just before the arrival of the US Ambassador in Tripoli. The file of al-Iraqi is missing in all databases; he was captured in 2005 and kept in various secret prisons, until transferred to Guantanamo where he remains detained.
So the trail to Abbottabad was known to the US intelligence services at least since 2005, when al-Libi was captured. "Careful reading of the file," Shamir writes, "shows that al-Libi was connected with al-Iraqi since October 2002. In 2003, Osama stated al-Libi would be the official messenger between OBL and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, al-Libi moved his family to Abbottabad, Pakistan and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar. He maintained contact with al-Iraqi."
We can conclude, from this narrative, that when the unredacted WikiLeaks files surfaced, US intelligence concluded that Osama's associates would soon figure out that the Americans had made the appropriate connections and conjectures and there the associates urged him to move on with all due haste. So Obama decided to send in the Seals.
From this active volcano of lies, we can safely assume that Obama's re-election campaign has been well and truly launched. Lift-off began on April 27 with the White House's release of the long birth certificate. Obama seems to have problems with timely provision of convincing documentation about arrivals (his own) and departures (Bin Laden's).
Release of the full birth certificate could have come in 2008, when it first became a minor issue. Instead Obama refused to authorize release until last week, by which time 25 per cent of all Americans and 50 per cent of all Republicans thought he was hiding something fishy. A photo of the dead Osama would have been useful this week in quelling speculation.
Had it not been for cloud cover over Abbottabad, the raid on Osama's compound could have come on Friday, April 29, the same day as the royal wedding.
Saturday, April 30 was reserved for the attempted assassination of Colonel Gaddafi, with the dropping of precision-guided bombs on the house of his son Saif, who died along with three grandchildren. Saif, then four, was in the Gaddafi family compound on April 15, 1986 when bombs ordered up by Ronald Reagan were dropped from F-111s, killing his 15-month old sister, adopted by Gaddafi 11 months earlier. Thus have Reagan and Obama shared a target. 'Decapitation' - going for the enemy's top guy - is now standard Nato strategy. In the "shock and awe" assaults on Iraq in 2003, the prime mission of US bombers was to target whatever houses Saddam was presumed to be visiting. We can assume electronic eavesdrops or maybe a human observer told the Nato targeteers that Gaddafi himself was in the house that Saturday, and the bombers were swiftly dispatched from Nato's Allied Air Command in Izmir, Turkey, whose overall commander is Lt-Gen Ralph J. Jodice II (US).
Would Obama have been briefed on the plan, or have signed off on a program of targeted assassination of Gaddafi? It seems a sure thing.
Reverse the rationale. If a Libyan bomber had blown up the wedding couple and a goodly tranche of the British upper crust in Westminster Abbey under justification that the whole place and its human contents, down to the grandchildren, not to mention the hats, were fair game because Cameron was there.
As the Oxford historian Mark Almond subsequently wrote (http://www.counterpunch.org/almond05032011.html) in this site, "Little wonder, the royal newlyweds' honeymoon was suddenly cancelled on Saturday. So much of William and Kate's nuptials was choreographed around their parents' and grandparents' weddings that it was a fair guess that like Princess Elizabeth and Philip they were going to fly to Malta to start their honeymoon before going on to Kenya where three generations of Windsors have enjoyed cementing their relations. Malta is too close to Libya for comfort and Kenya's Muslim minority might not be too friendly to a serving Nato officer."
But Gaddafi survived. So Obama only had one bloodied feather in his cap when he gave one of the most morally repellent speeches I have ever heard delivered from the White House. Bush at least had the crude brio of a semi-literate jock when he vaunted America's prowess. Obama's "we nailed him" paragraphs of mendacity concluded with Dickensian Heepishness: "Tonight we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history."
Alas, the actual story of the "our history" is an unrelenting ability to lie about everything, while simultaneously claiming America's superior moral worth.
Footnote: Peering briefly at the royal nuptials in a house high up in the mountains above Malibu, I was surprised to see how spectacularly tacky the British upper classes have become. They looked very vulgar. The appalling cuteness of the Aston Martin supplied the coup de grace. The groom didn’t know how to stand up properly. Contrary to effusive comparisons, the bride’s much touted dress from the atelier of the wildly overpraised late Alexander McQueen, was a far cry from Grace Kelly’s, designed by Helen Rose, who had dressed her in High Society (http://www.gracekellyonline.com/filmography/high-society/) and The Swan (http://www.gracekellyonline.com/filmography/swan/). The bride’s headdress hung like a dishrag. The only vestments born with confidence and aplomb were those of the churchmen. The Archbishop of Canterbury, with his emphatic beard and specs, had a splendid cope. His voice was confident. I’d like to see him in debate with one of Teheran’s ayatollahs. But the Anglo actresses watching the event on our mountain were ecstatic. My daughter Daisy, returning to London two days later, reported that the young women she was encountering were all swept away by the event and eager for marriage.

Wallace108

05-09-2011, 02:14 AM

I caught part of Chris Wallace's interview with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon on Fox News Sunday. I'm paraphrasing, but Wallace asked him what was wrong with "enhanced interrogation methods" like waterboarding ...

Donilon said those kind of methods are inconsistent with America's values. Wallace then asked him if shooting an unarmed man in the face is consistent with America's values. :chuckle:

Donilon's response: We are at war. :doh:

ricardisimo

05-09-2011, 03:35 PM

I caught part of Chris Wallace's interview with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon on Fox News Sunday. I'm paraphrasing, but Wallace asked him what was wrong with "enhanced interrogation methods" like waterboarding ...

Donilon said those kind of methods are inconsistent with America's values. Wallace then asked him if shooting an unarmed man in the face is consistent with America's values. :chuckle:

Donilon's response: We are at war. :doh:
That is classic.

ricardisimo

05-10-2011, 04:46 PM

May 10, 2011
Why It Violated International Law

Assassinating Bin Laden

By MARJORIE COHN
When he announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed by a Navy Seal team in Pakistan, President Barack Obama said, "Justice has been done." Mr. Obama misused the word "justice" when he made that statement. He should have said, "Retaliation has been accomplished." A former professor of constitutional law should know the difference between those two concepts. The word "justice" implies an act of applying or upholding the law.
Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.
Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that "extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war." The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions.
In spite of its illegality, the Obama administration frequently uses targeted assassinations to accomplish its goals. Five days after executing Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama tried to bring "justice" to U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with any crime in the United States. The unmanned drone attack in Yemen missed al-Awlaki and killed two people "believed to be al Qaeda militants," according to a CBS/AP bulletin.
Two days before the Yemen attack, U.S. drones killed 15 people in Pakistan and wounded four. Since the March 17 drone attack that killed 44 people, also in Pakistan, there have been four drone strikes. In 2010, American drones carried out 111 strikes. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that 957 civilians were killed in 2010.
The United States disavowed the use of extrajudicial killings under President Gerald Ford. After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disclosed in 1975 that the CIA had been involved in several murders or attempted murders of foreign leaders, President Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. Every succeeding president until George W. Bush renewed that order. However, the Clinton administration targeted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but narrowly missed him.
In July 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel denounced Israel's policy of targeted killings, or "preemptive operations." He said "the United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that."
Yet after September 11, 2001, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer invited the killing of Saddam Hussein: "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less" than the cost of war. Shortly thereafter, Bush issued a secret directive, which authorized the CIA to target suspected terrorists for assassination when it would be impractical to capture them and when large-scale civilian casualties could be avoided.
In November 2002, Bush reportedly authorized the CIA to assassinate a suspected Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. He and five traveling companions were killed in the hit, which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz described as a "very successful tactical operation."
After the Holocaust, Winston Churchill wanted to execute the Nazi leaders without trials. But the U.S. government opposed the extrajudicial executions of Nazi officials who had committed genocide against millions of people. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served as chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, told President Harry Truman: "We could execute or otherwise punish [the Nazi leaders] without a hearing. But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would . . . not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by children with pride."
Osama bin Laden and the "suspected militants" targeted in drone attacks should have been arrested and tried in U.S. courts or an international tribunal. Obama cannot serve as judge, jury and executioner. These assassinations are not only illegal; they create a dangerous precedent, which could be used to justify the targeted killings of U.S. leaders.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, past president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her latest book is “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814717322/counterpunchmaga)” (NYU Press).

HAWK

05-10-2011, 06:58 PM

So?

I like how you can bomb a compound for days killing countless in the process and that's perfectly acceptable. Kill someone in a surgical strike and it's all of a sudden wrong and against the law.

This kind of duality today is astounding.

ricardisimo

05-10-2011, 07:26 PM

So?

I like how you can bomb a compound for days killing countless in the process and that's perfectly acceptable. Kill someone in a surgical strike and it's all of a sudden wrong and against the law.

This kind of duality today is astounding.
There's no "duality" if the law is crystal clear. The duality would be that the US can bomb compounds for days on end, whereas Cuba or Zaire cannot. The duality is, as pointed out in the article, the US lecturing Israel on assassinations while carrying them out themselves. There's no duplicity (the word I think you meant) or hypocrisy in the law as long as it is applied across the board.

I realize that as an American, it's essential for you to run to the defense of your government whenever anyone criticizes it, especially with regards to justifiable criticisms, but you're going to have to do better than "So?"

MattsMe

05-10-2011, 08:24 PM

...but you're going to have to do better than "So?"

Yeah, and?

HAWK

05-10-2011, 08:56 PM

There's no "duality" if the law is crystal clear. The duality would be that the US can bomb compounds for days on end, whereas Cuba or Zaire cannot. The duality is, as pointed out in the article, the US lecturing Israel on assassinations while carrying them out themselves. There's no duplicity (the word I think you meant) or hypocrisy in the law as long as it is applied across the board.

I realize that as an American, it's essential for you to run to the defense of your government whenever anyone criticizes it, especially with regards to justifiable criticisms, but you're going to have to do better than "So?"

First off, please calm yourself. Don't assume you know the entirety of someone's political or social philosophies from a few random sentences on teh intahnetz.

I'm not defending any country. I was simply pointing out the obvious contradictions globally. In war people get killed. How they're killed is of course relevant, but let's not pretend one way is nicer than the other.

And no, I meant "duality." As in we seem to want most things both ways.

ricardisimo

05-11-2011, 04:52 PM

First off, please calm yourself. Don't assume you know the entirety of someone's political or social philosophies from a few random sentences on teh intahnetz.

I'm not defending any country. I was simply pointing out the obvious contradictions globally. In war people get killed. How they're killed is of course relevant, but let's not pretend one way is nicer than the other.

And no, I meant "duality." As in we seem to want most things both ways.
OK. I think it's my Philosophy training rearing it's ugly head here, but "duality" always brings up the Cartesian mind/body thing for me. But duality it is.

The long and the short of it is that way too many people are getting away with way too many crimes by simply saying "It's war, dammit! What part of war don't you understand, you glue-sniffing, patchouli-wearing, tree-hugging Hitler-appeaser????"

... or words to that effect. Killing an entire household of unarmed people who have only been tried in the court of public opinion, and even that only thanks to the mainstream media, and in an allied country, to boot.... what part of this sits well with you?

HAWK

05-11-2011, 05:02 PM

It doesn't.

I was simply pointing out the bureaucracy that has been instilled into all of us that it's perfectly acceptable to bomb numerous dwellings in a city block killing any number of soldiers, civilians..women, children...but OH NOO..OBL GOT SHOT IN THE HEAD!!!!1

Point is: Deserved or not, we're talking about killing a human being. Is one way really better than another considering the end result is the same?

ricardisimo

05-13-2011, 03:25 AM

More exceedingly well thought out commentary:

Published on Saturday, May 7, 2011 by Guernica Magazine (http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/)
Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
by Noam Chomsky (http://www.commondreams.org/noam-chomsky)

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Atlanta Dan

05-13-2011, 12:44 PM

More exceedingly well thought out commentary:

Published on Saturday, May 7, 2011 by Guernica Magazine (http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/)
Noam Chomsky: My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.
by Noam Chomsky (http://www.commondreams.org/noam-chomsky)

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

As anyone who was around here prior to November 2008 (when previous management banned me for an election night discourse) may recall I am no fan of George W.

But with regard to the Chomsky piece above, Andrew Sullivan nails it

Oh, and "uncontroversially, Bushs' crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s." Uncontroversially. It's that word that proves you are listening to a fanatic.

The long and the short of it is that way too many people are getting away with way too many crimes by simply saying "It's war, dammit! What part of war don't you understand, you glue-sniffing, patchouli-wearing, tree-hugging Hitler-appeaser????"

... or words to that effect. Killing an entire household of unarmed people who have only been tried in the court of public opinion, and even that only thanks to the mainstream media, and in an allied country, to boot.... what part of this sits well with you?
:rofl:

Atlanta Dan

05-13-2011, 07:06 PM

It appears retired Justice Stevens, who was no consistent fan of the approach taken by the Bush Administration to the "War On Terror' has a different take from that of legal scholar Noam Chomsky regarding the killing of OBL

Justice Stevens says bin Laden killing legally justified

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has voiced support for the killing of al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces, saying it was legally justified.

In remarks Thursday evening at his alma mater, Northwestern University, the 91-year-old former justice said the order by President Barack Obama for the covert mission by U.S. Navy SEALs was "to remove an enemy who had been trying every day to attack the United States," according to two people who attended a symposium and dinner that was closed to the media.

Stevens said he was pleased the president took the risky decision to launch the May 2 commando assault on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. The justice added, "I must say I was very proud of the SEALs."

No sitting member of the Supreme Court has commented on the bin Laden killing and is not likely to, since current or related executive branch issues may someday come before them.

There have been legal questions surrounding whether U.S. and international law would permit a unilateral executive decision to kill a terrorist leader with no ties to any government. Attorney General Eric Holder said the day after the mission, "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."

As founder and head of al Qaeda, bin Laden was viewed by the administration as a combatant actively involved in past and current hostilities against the United States and other countries.

The insistence by Obama officials that the killing was justified come despite bin Laden not being armed when commandos stormed his third-floor room. Those officials insist the Saudi native "resisted" and made no clear indication he would surrender.

Stevens said based on his knowledge of the facts, "I haven't the slightest doubt it was entirely appropriate for American forces to act" as they did. "It was not merely to do justice and avenge September 11."

For anyone who thinks Stevens is a knee jerk supporter of whatever it takes to go after Al Qaeda, check out his linked opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

Or you can believe Chomsky has it right:noidea:

ricardisimo

05-14-2011, 01:40 AM

Unfortunately for Stevens and Obama, the United Nations - not them - adjudicates international law and the laws governing war crimes. Fortunately for them, there's no way in hell that the UN is ever going to do anything meaningful towards the United States, no matter how heinous the crimes of our government. If you're the capo di tutti capi, you get to do what you want. That's just the way the world works.

Still, none of the stark realities of global politics change the fact that it is not only flatly illegal to send black ops agents uninvited into another country and murder everyone in a private residence - unarmed each and every one of them - just because your propaganda says they are guilty of something. In fact, contrary to that idiot Holder's statement, it is not "lawful to target an enemy commander in the field" as was pointed out in the earlier article by Marjorie Cohn.

Will the US get away with this? Of course they will. It's almost been forgotten already. Was it legal. No. No part of it was legal. It's very, very important to call Chomsky a fanatic, and just as important to ignore that Stevens offers a personal opinion with zero legal support. Whatever you do, don't for a moment think why it would likewise be legal for al Qaeda to send commandos to kill Bush and dump his body in the ocean.

I'm eager to hear what part of Chomsky's comment is actually controversial.

Atlanta Dan

05-14-2011, 08:26 AM

I'm eager to hear what part of Chomsky's comment is actually controversial.

I bold faced it for you - if Chomsky and you think W is a greater criminal than OBL that is an opinion, not an "uncontroversial" fact

As far as the UN being the decider as to what governs the conduct of sovereign nations, the Hamdan majority and dissenting opinions provide a pretty good analysis of that issue with regard to what the U.S. does and does not buy into when it signs an international agreement

SteelersinCA

05-14-2011, 11:36 AM

Cohn is a nut. That being said, I think killing Osama as a "commander in the field" is quite a stretch when he's in another sovereign nation. However, i don't have a problem with it.

A stash of pornography was found in the hideout of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. commandos who killed him, current and former U.S. officials said on Friday.

The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

I bold faced it for you - if Chomsky and you think W is a greater criminal than OBL that is an opinion, not an "uncontroversial" fact

As far as the UN being the decider as to what governs the conduct of sovereign nations, the Hamdan majority and dissenting opinions provide a pretty good analysis of that issue with regard to what the U.S. does and does not buy into when it signs an international agreement
It's not just an opinion. It's a completely uncontroversial assessment of reality. George Bush launched two thoroughly illegal wars (wars of aggression, the war crime numero uno) against the wishes of the majority back home in what is supposedly a democracy, and in complete contravention of international law. The most conservative bodycount numbers produced by those two wars are in the hundreds of thousands, while others put it in the millions.

Bin Laden, on the other hand, was involved in the USS Cole attack, and was probably involved in 9/11 as well (although now we will never know for sure.) Even assuming that bi Laden's status within al Qaeda is the equivalent of Bush's Commander-in-Chief position, thereby putting all responsibility for the attacks squarely on his shoulders, the numbers still lean heavily against Bush.

All of these people all monsters. We don't need to quibble about that. The comment from Chomsky was that Bush's crimes far exceeded bin Laden's, which is 100% true. And yet it would still be unacceptable for al Qaeda to launch a commando attack in the US to grab Bush, kill him in his home, and then dump his body in the ocean. Nothing Chomsky said qualifies as the ravings of a fanatic... unless one simply never, ever questions the right of the United States government to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants wherever they want to do it, and especially when it is clearly flatly illegal.

I'm at a bit of a loss to draw the connection between Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and assassinations overseas. The UN and the World Court adjudicate international law. International laws and treaties which the US has signed automatically become the law of the land. What's the complication here?

Atlanta Dan

05-14-2011, 07:22 PM

It's not just an opinion. It's a completely uncontroversial assessment of reality. George Bush launched two thoroughly illegal wars (wars of aggression, the war crime numero uno) against the wishes of the majority back home in what is supposedly a democracy, and in complete contravention of international law.

I'm at a bit of a loss to draw the connection between Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and assassinations overseas. The UN and the World Court adjudicate international law. International laws and treaties which the US has signed automatically become the law of the land. What's the complication here?

I had a lengthy discourse on this board in 2008 (primarily with Preacher) in which I contended W was a war criminal with regard to "enhanced interrogations" (aka torturing) of detainees in violation of the Geneva Convention - so I am not defending W

But as far as the two wars launched by W - both of them were supported by a majority of the American public and Congress when they were launched - if you have any polling data to the contrary feel free to link to it - do not confuse your views (or mine with regard to Iraq) with "the wishes of the majority back home"

And as far as international treaties, I agree the treaties are the law of the land once ratified (whether certain treaty provisions governed treatment of detainees was a big part of what Hamdan was about). I do not understand those treaties to require UN approval before the U.S,.commences military action - the US may go to the UN for PR purposes but if the UN wants to stop the US from declaring war or having Congress otherwise authorize military action (something notably missing from our current excellent adventure in Libya) I doubt the US has signed a treaty that gives the UN the right to do something about it

You and I have a different view as to what constitutes uncontroversial assessments of reality on this point insofar as you contend George W. Bush is clearly a greater criminal than Bin Laden:drink:

MasterOfPuppets

05-14-2011, 08:49 PM

Ron Paul is the ONLY one in DC who has the balls to tell the truth

Ron Paul Enters Evidence of Bush War Crimes in Congressional Record (http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-enters-evidence-of-bush-war-crimes-in-congressional-record/)

Rep. Ron Paul read the text below into the Congressional Record earlier this year. Paul’s statement provides additional evidence to the established fact the globalist, bonesman, and former CIA director George Bush Senior duped Saddam Hussein, exploited his dispute with Kuwait – accusing Kuwait of slant drilling its oil – and gave Hussein a green light to attack Kuwait.
http://static.infowars.com/2011/02/i/article-images/rp.jpgFrom the Congressional Record, January 26, 2011, Page H503. It was posted on the Veterans Today (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/31/cong-ron-paul-classified-cable-proves-us-okd-saddams-kuwait-invasion/) website.
“The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started?
It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq’s August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait.
Amazingly, the released cable was entitled,
“Saddam’s Message of Friendship to President Bush.” (published below)
In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that “the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.” As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq’s ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, “we took no position on these Arab affairs.”
There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn’t surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified.
The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today.
{time} 1440
The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction–not to mention the financial costs–these past 20 years.
Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula–and in particular Saudi Arabia–was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals (sic) who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day.
Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight.
The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war–a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day.
The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo- conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end.

Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves.
But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government’s lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.”
Historian Mark Zepezauer (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html) notes that the equipment to slant drill Iraq’s oil illegally was bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft’s old company. Kuwait was pumping out around $14-billion worth of oil from beneath Iraqi territory. “Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq’s. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it’s certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast,” writes Zepezauer.
Iraq invaded Kuwait after it broke off negotiations.
Bush and the United Nations ordered the systematic destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq on January 16, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. EST.
Bush ordered 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a report sent to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.
“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq’s infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq’s civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities,” Ramsey Clarke (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Charges-WC.html) and others wrote in 1992. “The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.”
The invasion, enforced blockade of Iraq and the international sanctions which decimated the war-ravaged country for over a decade prepared the people of Iraq for the transformation their modern state into a hellhole now wracked by sectarian violence.
Over 500,000 people were slaughtered (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm) in Bush’s war. Between 1991 and 1998, there were 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children under five years of age due to brutal sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations. “If you include adults, the figure is now almost certainly well over a million,” Hans Von Sponeck (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Paying_Price_TNROTW.html) said. Sponeck was a UN Assistant Secretary-General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.
Bush’s son re-invaded Iraq under completely bogus circumstances. George Bush Junior killed or contributed to the death of more than 1.4 million human beings, according to Just Foreign Policy (http://sites.google.com/site/iraqiholocaustiraqigenocide/just-foreign-policy). “Iraq deaths. The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003,” they write.
The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count… The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion. This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.
And yet Bush and his son are considered by the establishment and millions of Americans to be esteemed elder statesmen, not war criminals.

Bangkok, Thailand May 13, 2011 – In the shadow of the “Bin Laden” media circus and increasingly aggressive rhetoric between Washington and Islamabad, the corporate-financier funded NGOs that fomented the “Arab Spring” are now cultivating a united Baluchi front ahead of a proposed US-funded Baluchistan insurrection. As early as 2006, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace identified Pakistan’s Baluchistan province as a potential point of leverage against Islamabad and an opportunity to assert foreign intervention.

In a 2006 report by the corporate-financier funded think tank titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism,” violence starting as early as 2004-2005 is described. According to the report, 20% of Pakistan’s mineral and energy resources reside in the sparsely populated province. On page 4 of the report, the prospect of using the Baluchi rebels against both Islamabad and Tehran is proposed. In Seymour Hersh’s 2008 article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” US support of Baluchi groups operating against Tehran is reported as already a reality. In Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” the subject of arming and sending Baluchi insurgents against Tehran is also discussed at great depth.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0wh7ZTCFDLY/Tc1iezEyTtI/AAAAAAAAIvI/Dw30dOb08k0/s1600/carnegiebaluchistanmap.jpg
Pipelines, ports, and petroleum: destabilizing and carving off a “free Baluchistan” would hobble the development of 4 nations – Pakistan, Iran, India, and China. With Pakistan’s plans to use the Baluchi port of Gwadar to give Central Asian countries access to the sea facing a failure, it may disrupt their development as well. The globalists then get more time to implement their “international system” in the face of a weakened Asia.

The 2006 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report makes special note of the fact that above all, the Baluchistan province serves as a transit zone for a potential Iranian-India-Turkmenistan natural gas pipeline as well as a port, Gwadar, that serves as a logistical hub for Afghanistan, Central Asia’s landlocked nations as well as a port for the Chinese. The report notes that the port was primarily constructed with Chinese capital and labor with the intention of it serving as a Chinese naval station “to protect Beijing’s oil supply from the Middle East and to counter the US presence in Central Asia.”

This point in particular, regarding China, was described in extricating detail in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report means to co-opt and contain China’s influence throughout the region are discussed.

The Carnegie Endowment report goes on to describe how the Baluchi rebels have fortuitously begun attacking the development of their province over concerns of “marginalization” and “dispossession.” In particular attacks were launched against the Pakistani military and Chinese facilities. The question of foreign intervention is brought up in this 2006 report, based on accusations by the Pakistani government that the rebels are armed with overly sophisticated weaponry. India, Iran, and the United States are accused as potential culprits.

The report concludes that virtually none of Pakistan’s neighbors would benefit from the insurgency and that the insurgency itself has no possibility of succeeding without “foreign support.” The conflict is described as a potential weapon that could be used against Pakistan and that it is “ultimately Islamabad that must decide whether Baluchistan will become its Achilles’ heel.” This somewhat cryptic conclusion, in the light of recent reports and developments can be deciphered as a veiled threat now being openly played.

Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.

Harrison’s February 2011 piece, “Free Baluchistan,” calls to “aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression.” He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, “Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”

Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the ******* Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an ******* Sea outlet at Gwadar.”

Harrison has made calls for the carving up of Pakistan for years. In 2009 he insisted that Pakistan should grant Baluchistan autonomy, citing a laundry list of technicalities that justified such a devolution of power. Quite clearly, Mr. Harrison has become more blunt as of late. And while endless papers and covert support for the Baluchi insurgency have been going on for years, more overt calls, echoing with equal, self-serving hollowness as those for Libya’s foreign-funded rebellion, are being made.

During the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sponsored “Balochistan International Conference 2011” held in Washington D.C., calls were made for “international intervention.” Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France, amongst the myriad of Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, Thais, Chinese, Iranians, all working with foreign aid to subvert and overthrow the governments in their homelands. A presentation (shown below) gives us a verbatim rehash of the same antics that led up to a military attack on Libya, and similar rhetoric being used to set the ground work for intervention in Syria.
Change Baluchistan to Libya, change the Baluchi names to Libyan names and you can see the same US-funded propaganda that led to Western military operations in North Africa.

Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at the “Balochistan International Conference” and frequently reiterates his calls for a “free Baluchistan.” With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Such encouragement from Harrison, whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva’s flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International, as well as the globalist mainstays of Soros, Rockefeller, and the Smith Richardson Foundation – would be almost laughable if real people weren’t dying and Pakistan’s entire future being put at risk.

There is no question that a concerted effort is being made to build-up a Baluchi front with which to menace Pakistan. With the Chinese already present inside the province and their base at Gwadar completed, and as tensions between Washington and Islamabad escalate, this low intensity rebellion might just get the “foreign support” needed to carve itself off from Pakistan. This would interrupt Pakistan’s use of this resource rich, strategically located province, prevent Iran from sending a pipeline to India, as well as eject the Chinese from the region. For those wondering why America is attempting to escalate tensions in Pakistan over the “Bin Laden” hoax instead of using it as an excuse to leave the region, the Balkanization of Pakistan and the permanent disruption of Pakistan’s, Iran’s, and China’s development is your answer. It isn’t a matter of if, it is now only a matter of how big the insurrection can be grown.

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.

ricardisimo

05-15-2011, 05:22 AM

I had a lengthy discourse on this board in 2008 (primarily with Preacher) in which I contended W was a war criminal with regard to "enhanced interrogations" (aka torturing) of detainees in violation of the Geneva Convention - so I am not defending W

But as far as the two wars launched by W - both of them were supported by a majority of the American public and Congress when they were launched - if you have any polling data to the contrary feel free to link to it - do not confuse your views (or mine with regard to Iraq) with "the wishes of the majority back home"

And as far as international treaties, I agree the treaties are the law of the land once ratified (whether certain treaty provisions governed treatment of detainees was a big part of what Hamdan was about). I do not understand those treaties to require UN approval before the U.S,.commences military action - the US may go to the UN for PR purposes but if the UN wants to stop the US from declaring war or having Congress otherwise authorize military action (something notably missing from our current excellent adventure in Libya) I doubt the US has signed a treaty that gives the UN the right to do something about it

You and I have a different view as to what constitutes uncontroversial assessments of reality on this point insofar as you contend George W. Bush is clearly a greater criminal than Bin Laden:drink:
The war in Afghanistan was largely opposed here at home... until it became clear that it was an inevitability, and then good Americans all, we rah-rahed all the way to Kabul, and then downward ever since. We see the exact same arc with the war in Iraq. I mention it's popularity (or lack thereof) in passing, and only to underscore how truly undemocratic we are. The more important the decision, the less we are consulted, either directly or via our elected representatives, who are clearly in office to rubber stamp anything the king - Oops! I mean, the president - wants to do. None of this has anything to do with war crimes, however.

We're discussing two different things here. The first is the reality that the US is the Big Don on the block, the capo di tutti capi, and they can do as they please, ignoring the United Nations at will. I'm not contesting that at all. Ours is a rogue state, a criminal state that does as it pleases without regard to international law, individual lives, or any other considerations.

The second thing we're discussing here is what international law actually says. What it says is that:

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_conflict) waged without the justification of self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense) usually for territorial gain and subjugation;
Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council)) can be considered wars of aggression;
Waging such a war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) of aggression is a crime under the customary international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law). Nuremburg, Tokyo, the Rio Pact, Resolution 3314 and the Rome Statute all clarify this;
And these laws are adjudicated by the United Nations, and tried in the ICC.

So, will Obama or Bush ever see the inside of a jail cell? No, of course not. Well, maybe Obama, but only because he's lying about his birth certificate. But no Tea Partier in his right mind would ever question Obama's prerogative - nay, duty - to assassinate anyone and everyone he sees fit to kill, so long as it boosts his reelection chances. That includes, by the way, American citizens (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html). It's good to see that the Right has its priorities in order.

As far as Chomsky's fanatical views, though... Look, let's put it in grotesque terms: Who's commited the greater crime? Someone who murders one person, or someone who murders one hundred? Just because one of them is "our" criminal, we're not allowed to do the most basic math? That's exactly how Stalin got a pass for so long in this country and around the world, despite being by far the greater criminal than Hitler; he was "our criminal". Don't fall for it.

And MoP: Ron Paul is a bad ass, no doubt about it. There used to be one or two on the other side of the aisle I held in high regard, but no longer. Paul is just about the only guy with any spine left in Washington worth mentioning.